ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 2, 2017, the court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 30) and granted leave to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 131. Plaintiff, through his counsel, filed a second amended complaint on May 30, 2017. ECF No. 132. Defendants have requested that the court screen the newly filed complaint pursuant to §1915A. ECF Nos. 133 &134. The court will do so.
I. Screening Requirements
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
A claim "is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only `a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"
"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
II. Screening Order
Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 17, 2012 and while incarcerated at California Medical Facility (CMF), he was given a shot of muscle relaxant by defendant John Doe. ECF No. 132 at 3. The shot allegedly struck a sciatic nerve in his buttocks and left his right leg paralyzed.
A. B. Dhillon
Plaintiff's claims against Dhillon are too vague to proceed. His allegations against this defendant are contained in a single sentence which states only that "Dr. Dhillon refused to provide Plaintiff with appropriate medication, a wheel chair, or crutches when requested."
Further, the exhibits attached to the complaint indicate that plaintiff was provided with both medication and ambulatory aides. In an institutional response to plaintiff's first level appeal, dated November 30, 2012, defendant Rading noted that Dhillon had given plaintiff pain medication, ordered crutches, and referred him to another physician for further evaluation. ECF No. 132-1 at 5. A health services request dated August 19, 2012 and signed by Nurse "S. Barker" states that plaintiff "actually came in on a wheelchair today. . . ."
B. Rading, Ditomas, and Clark
Plaintiff alleges that these defendants denied his 602 prison appeals. He avers that Rading and Ditomas denied an appeal for crutches. ECF No. 132 at 4. He alleges defendant Clark denied an appeal requesting that proper medical treatment be afforded.
Additionally, the grievances attached to plaintiff's complaint indicate that officials denied his request for crutches because he had already been provided with crutches. ECF No. 132-1 at 26. Clark denied his request for "appropriate care" after determining that his care was already adequate.
III. Leave to Amend
The court finds that the record weighs against giving plaintiff a third opportunity to amend for the purpose of stating cognizable claims against defendants Dhillon, Rading, Ditomas, and Clark. Plaintiff has already been afforded two opportunities to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Additionally, after defendants' motions to dismiss were summarily granted (ECF No. 131), plaintiff and his counsel presumably understood the inadequacies in their pleading. The fact that the second amended complaint has not remedied those inadequacies suggests that further attempts at amendment would be futile.
IV. Service of Doe Defendant
If the court's recommendations are adopted, this action will proceed only against defendant John Doe. This defendant cannot be served until he is identified. This court will provide plaintiff with sixty days to provide an identity for this defendant. At the end of that deadline, if plaintiff has been unable to produce an identity for John Doe, he may submit a filing showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve. That filing should detail the steps that he and his counsel have undertaken to discern this defendant's identity and why an extension of time would not be futile.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference toward a serious medical need against defendants Dhillon, Rading, Ditomas, and Clark be dismissed without leave to amend.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.